<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (7) TMI 664 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425109</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. It held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as the appellant began declaring RSP after being informed through notifications, indicating no deliberate evasion of duty. The Tribunal provided consequential relief, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s actions did not amount to intentional evasion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2022 22:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=685175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (7) TMI 664 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425109</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the duty demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. It held that the extended period of limitation was not applicable as the appellant began declaring RSP after being informed through notifications, indicating no deliberate evasion of duty. The Tribunal provided consequential relief, emphasizing that the appellant&#039;s actions did not amount to intentional evasion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=425109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>